HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-1976 Planning Commission Minutess CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
~INUTE S
TI~: 7:30 p.m. - Wednesday, April.14, 1976
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. 95070
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Conmissioners Belanger, Callon, ~rshall, Martin and Zambetti
Absent: Cormnissioners Lustig and Woodward
B.MINUTES - The minutes were not ready for approval, and this item was continued
to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1976.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Composition of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Corf~f~issioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission approve the composition of the Consent Calendar less
Item l(c), application SDR-1224. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. Items for Consent Calendar
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning
Commission grant approval to the following items:
1. Final Buildin8 Sites/Tentative Subdivisions
a. SDR-1134 - Rolf Kirsch, Pierce Road, Final Building Si.te Approval
1 Lot
b. SDR-1173 - Frank Lamonica, Pike Road, Final Building Site Approval
1 Lot
2. Design Review
a. ~S.S-104 - Otsen Signs (She~y. Williams)~ Sara~oga-Sunnyvale_Road, ~
"(~rgonaut Shopping Center), Commercial Identification Sign;
Per Exhibit "A" and Staff Report dated April 6~ 1976
b. A-418 - Kocher-Tyler, Big Basin Way and 5th Street, Final Design
Review Approval - Improvements at Rear of Commercial Site;
Per Exhibit "B-3" and Staff Report dated April 8~ 1976
c. A-472--- Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Black Walnut
Court, Final Design Review Approval - Single-Family Residence
Lots #3 and ~9 of Tract #5583; Per Exhibits "I" and "H" and
Staff Report dated April 7~ 1976
The motion was carried unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-446 - David Bo~.zman, 13685 Yerba Santa Court, Request for Variance to Allow a
Reduction in the Required Sideyard Setback for the Construction of a
Swimming Pool (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7 and 3.2f); Continued from
~rch 24~ 1976
The public hearingOtS6' was reopened at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Bo~oanan, applicant, explained that he had investigated an alternate location
for the swimming pool, but that the cost of such would be much larger than that
of'hi~ c'u~ent plan. This factor, coupled with the safety problem involved in
-1-
.,COMMISSION MINTUES OF~RIL 14, 1976 '~
III. A. V-446 - David Bowman - Cont'd
not being able to observe a backyard pool area from the house, cause Mr. Bowman to
reiterate his request for a 5-foot variance. He further requested that action be
taken on this item this evening.
As there were no further comments from the public, Commissioner Marshall moved,
seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on V-446 be closed. The
motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on~V-446 was closed at 7:37
p.m.
7. Commission Response
Commissioner Martin drew the Commission's attentio to a Report dated April 1,
1976 prepared by himself as Chairman of the Variance Committee, making special
note that the Report was supported by one other Variance Committee member. The
following cor. rections were made to said Report: (1) page 1, first paragraph -
change the reference to the required setback from 15 feet to 10 feet; and (2)
page 2, second paragraph - change the request:~rom 7 feet to 5 feet.
Commissioner Callon stated that she, as a member of the Variance Cu~ttee,
disagreed with the Variance Committee's report, and concurred with the Staff
Report dated April 8, 1976 recommending approval. She emphasized the fact that
Mr. Bowman had cooperatad fully with the City in attempting to find an alternate
location for his pool; but that due to a miscalculation in the property line
measurements, it had been determined ~hat a 5-f6ot variance would be necessary.
Commissioner Calton indicated that she felt this was an unusual circumstance,
that there was a safety'~roblem involved in installing a pool in the backyard,
and she recommended that the variance request be approved.
Co~aaissioner Marshall supported the Variance Committee's report ~tating that he
felt variance approval "should be held for absolute necessities rather than for
slight variances where the individual's desires are different from what he could
have under the ordinances." He contended that a s~imming pool was considered
to be a luxury ~se; and consequently, denial of the variance would not ~onstitute
denial of a privilege normally enjoyed by others in the same zoning district.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission should
deviate from the criteria used for granting variances, and he noted that there
was an appeal provision to which the applicant could avail himself.
Chairman Belanger directed her~/comments to the Staff Report, requesting clarifi-
cation be made to Part 5 addressing the distance be~qeen the proposed pool site
and the home on the adjacent site. Staff explained that the pool would be located
28'6" to the rear of the adjacent structure. Further with regard to Part 5,
Chairman Belanger requested that the actual pool width (rather than the 17-foot
figure which reflected the narrowest point of the pool) be described in the Staff
Report. She pointed out that Staff's re~erence in Part 5 to a 10-foot planting
strip to buffer noise would be an impossibility, given only a 10-foot setback,
with several feet of this to be consumed by pool decking. She also requested
reference to Exhibit "D" be corrected from Exh~'~it "B" on page 3 under Recommended
Action.
Atzthis point, Commissioner ~rtin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the
Planning Commission deny application V-446 per the Variance Committee Report dated
April 1, 1976,:as amended. The motion was carried, Commissioner Callon voted no.
The applicant was advised that an appeal could be made to the City Council ~ithin~'
10 days of this Planning Commission decision.
B. V-447 - John and Edna Herman, Michaels Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a
Reduction in the Required Sideyard Setback for the Construction of a
Swimming Pool (Ordinance NS-3~ Sections 3.5 and 3.2f)
The public hearing on V-447 was opened at 7:50 p.m. Staff noted that the Variance
-2-
CO~v~rSSION MINUTES OF AP_RIL 14, 1976
III. B. V-447 - John and Edna Herman - Cont'd
Committee had reviewed this request involving the reduction of a sideyard setback
requirement to facilitate the installation of a s~,~n~ning pool. Per the Staff
Report dated April 6, 1976, findings were made that topographical conditions
allowed for no alternate locations, and that the resulting impact of the variance
would be imperceptible. The following corr-espondence;was~ in~d~'~d'i~'t~h~
record on this item:
· Letter dated March 8, 1976 from David V.A. Fauvre, 21184 ~Rchaels Drive,
supporting the requested variance.
· Letter dated March 7, 1976 from Rodney Wingrove, 20889 Michaels Drive,
supporting the requested variance.
· Letter dated March 3, 1976 from Mr. and Mrs. Edward Winn, 21139 Michaels
Drive, supporting the requested variance.
Mr. Herman, applicant, explained that this site was the only feasible location
for a swimm{ng pool in that grades on the other sides of the property ranged
from 20-35%. He pointed out that the site was completely hidden from the
view of everyone except Mr. and Mrs. Winn whose support was evidenced in
their letter of March 3, 1976.
As there w~re no further comments made by members of the audience, Commissioner
Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on
V-447 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing
on V-447 was closed at 7:53 p.m.
Commissioner Martin reported that the Variance Committee endorsed approval of
this request for a variance due to the unique topographieal features of the
site, and the fact that alternate locations were not available.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant approval to application V-447 per Exhibits "A" and "B," and
subject to the Staff Report dated April 6, 1976. The motion was carried
unanimously.
C. V-448 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Request for Variance to Allow a
Reduction in the Required Rearyard Setback for the Construction of a
~elling (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7 of Article 3)
Staff requested this matter be continued pending further exploration of alter-
natives, The following correspondence~-~wasL introduced into the record:
(1) Letter dated March 29, 1976 from Adah C. Nelson, 20851 Saratoga Hills Road,
expressing approval of the requested variance. (2) Letter dated March 28, 1976
from Frank Nelson, 13897 Trinity Avenue, endorsing this requested variance.
(3) Petition dated March 27, 1976 signed by 12 homeowners residing on Saratoga
Hills Road, Trinity Avenue, Michaels Drive and Pontiac Avenue, endorsing this
requested variance. The public hearing on V-448 was opened at 7:55 p~m.
· Thomas Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Road, stated that he lived next door
to the applicant, and expressed doubt that a variance would be needed with
a 1-acre site. He pointed out that there was an existing house on this
property, contended that there had been no indication on the part of the
applicant as to what would be done with this existing house, and noted that
it had been City policy in the past not to allow multi-family dwellings on
a single-family site. Further, Mr. Fryer stated: "It is your policy not
to have houses on the ridge; and unless this house is put on the ridge,
there will be no reason for a variance."
· Idalene Fryer, 14029 Saratoga Hills Road, read into the record a letter
prepared by herself. Essentially the letter contended that there was not
a need for a variance in that this was not a hardship case. She pointed
out that: "Placing the house as proposed puts the house on the ridgeline,
and would not conform with the ridgeline policy of Saratoga." She stated
that she felt this variance would be an imposition on the applicant's
neighbors and the City. ,Further, Ms. Fryer pointed out that the grade
of the property was very steep, and she noted that the files on 6his
property had not indicated conditions from the Fire Marshall.
-3-
COMMISSION MINUTES 0F~1976
III. C. V-448 - Roger Ross - Cont'd
Roger Ross, applicant, stated that he did not wish to answer those questions
raised by the Fryers, but pointed out that: "you have in your file an en-
dorsement from 12 of our neighbors favorably going along with the variance,
plus another letter."
Commissioner Callon stated that the Variance Conmittee had been reviewing this
application, and was aware of many of the issues referenced by the Fryers.
She stated that the Committee would not be willing to make a recommendation
on this site until it was fully satisfied that all zoning regulations and
the Fire }~rshall~s recommendations were adhered to.
At this point, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on V-448, directed
that same be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1976,
and referred this item to the Variance Committee and Staff for further review
and report.
D. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Verde Vista Lane, Request for Use
Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use
in a Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15 of
Zonin8 Ordinance NS-3
Staff explained that this was a request for a use permit to allow the con-
tinuation of a non-conforming commercial use in a residential zoning district
in accordance with Article 15 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3. It was noted that the
Subdivision Committee reviewed this item, and that a detailed Staff Report had
been prepared recommending this use be granted a permit to continue under its
present status for an indefinite period of tiem. Note was made, however, that
should it be proposed that the use be altered substantially and the commercial
aspects increased, then this would require a review of the use permit.
Four items of correspondence were introduced into the record, all of which
expressed support for the approval of this use permit: (1) Letter dated
April 5, 1976 from Charles Overton, 20667 Verde Vista Lane; (2) Note
dated April 9, 1976 from Jean Daikee, 20686 Verde Vista Lane; (3) Letter
dated April 2, 1976 from Ed and Betty Bunoski, 20600 Verde Vista Lane; and
(4) Letter dated April 6, 1976 from Mrs. Henry P. Kaplan, 20745 Sevilla Lane.
FCh~frman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-299 at 8:05 p.m.
Richard Applebaum, 20568 Sevilla Lane, explained that his lot backed onto
the applicant's site. He stated that he felt the applicant had been an
excellent neighbor, and recommended their.request for use p.ermit be approved.
He did, however, request that the above-ground p~w~r lines being used by the
applicant be rectified, explaining that it ~as his understanding that under-
ground power lines had been laid several years ago and were available for
hook-up by the applicant. Further, Mr. Applebaum noted that there was a
heavy use of equipment at early hours on the weekday mornings, and stated
that he did not feel this should occur in a residential neighborhood.
· George Zimmerman~ stated that he was a neighbor of Mr. Applebaum's, and
shared many of his feelings regarding the continuance of this business.
He stated that he felt the Horticultural Foundation was a good neighbor,
but requested the Commission to'give consideration to the power line issue
raised by Mr. Applebaum. He explained that the power lines ran over 6
swimming pools which could be a safety hazard, and requested that the
applicant be encouraged to make a hook-up to the underground power lines.
· Don Webster, 20565 V~rde Vista Lane, pointed out that he lived inTthe
house adjacent to th~ Foundation, and stated that he was in favor of its
continued use. He did, however, request that the use permit be made con-
ditional to landscaping in the front of the Foundation to bring it up to
normal residential standards.
-4-
· . CO~ISSION MINUTES OF 'RIL 14, 1976
III. b. UP-299 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation - Cont'd
· Richard Hildreth, 676 Fay Park Drive, San Jose, explained that he was the
director of the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation. He gave a history of
the Foundationts activities in Saratoga, offering to meet with any concerned
citizen of Saratoga to discuss the nature of this operation. He stated
that he was not aware of the underground power line availability, and
assured the Commission that he would be happy to investigate this possibility
further. Regarding t~e heavy equipment usage on early weekday mornings,
Mr. Hildreth stated that his c~ew did not get to work that early. However,
he noted that on Tuesday and Friday mornings, the Green Valley Refuse
Company made garbage pick-ups early in the mornings. He stated that he
had discussed with Mr. Webster the possibility of plantAng additional
landscaping in the front ~q~_t~ Foundation, and stated that he hoped to Y,
plant more such landscaping.
Commissioner.oMarshall, as chairman of the Subdivision Committee, requested
this matter be continued pending investigation of the 3 points raised by the
above-referenced residents. As there was no objection to this request,
Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-299, directed same be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1976, and referred this
item to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
E. UP-300 - Gerald and Patricia Renn (G.N. (Jerry) Renn, Inc.), Marion Avenue,
Use Permit to Allow the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commerdial
Use in a-Residential Zoning District in Accordance with Article 15
of Zoning Ordinance NS-3
Staff requested this matter be continued pending further review. The following
correspondence '.~as introduced into the record:
(1) Letter dated April 2, 1976 from Gerald Renn, applicant, describing the
operation of this business.
(2) Letter dated April 9, 1976 from Donald and Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion
Road, requesting this use permit application be denied. f ~
(3) Letter dated April 11, 1976 fromMr. and Mrs. Harry Oyler 20570 Marion ~
'Road, requesting this business?peration not b~ all~ed to continue in a =
Y~i~ential area. ~
(4) tetter da~e~'Ap~{f'll, 1976 f~om Laura Neale, 14165 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
stating that she was in favor of granting this use permit request.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-300 at 8:20 p.m. As there
were no comments to be made, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on
UP-300, directed that it be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
April 28, 1976, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff
for further revim~ and report.
F. UP-119-A - West Valley College, Fruitvale Avenue, Request for Amendment to
Use Permit ~119 (dated January 9, 1967) to Allow · Construction
of 5,000+ Seat Capacity Stadium to Include Bleachers, Lights and
Other Appurtenant Facilities, Including Ski Hill Lights
(Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.3)
Staff gave a brief slide presentation of the College's proposal, pointing out
locations for the proposed stadium facility, its pathways, seating, scoreboard,
press box, ticket booths, restrooms and lighting standards. Further, attention
was drawn to the scale-model and photographs of the proposed facility supplied
by the College for this use permit request. Note was made that the height
measurement of the major lights were to be 70 feet as measured from the bottom
of the field, or approximately 50 feet as measured from the top of the grade.
Further, it was noted that there would be 18-24 loud speakers proposed which
would be on 15-foot high standards. Slides were also shown of the proposed
ski-hill lighting. Slides reflecting the amount of traffic traveling Allendale
Avenue were shown, with an average of 1600-1800 cars per every 24-hour period
in 1966 increasing to approximately 7900 cars per every 24-hour period to date.
Staff pointed out that not only had traffic problems increased with the use at
-5-
~;~ ..: CO~SS IL 14, 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
West Valley College, but also off-street parking problems such as speeding and
parking in residential areas by students attending West Valley College.
Staff concluded its presentation by noting that a detailed Staff Report had been
prepared specifically addressing the above-referenced issues, and recommending
denial of the use permit as requested.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-119-A at 8:40 p.m.
Applicant's Presentation
Dr. Lowcry, Assestent Superintendent of Finance for West Valley College and ........
.repres~tit'i~e of the College, explained that they had applied for said use permit
as a'result 6f the Planning Director's letter of January 9, 1976 indicating that
the City was refusing to review the College's proposed plans for the stadium and
Lappurt.enan~ _~acili~ies insomuch as. ~aid facilitie.S_W_e~_e__pR~.~p__~o.m_pliance with
the City-approved Use Permit #UP-119 granted January 9, 1967. Dr. 'L~ery stated
that the College did not feel they were inconsistent with said'use permit in that
they felt they were proposing a modest scale of a facility to complete their
college, as well as the fact that they did not believe the type of faqility they
were propqsi~g was uncommon. He stressed.tDe fact that "San Jose Cit~ College,
Foothill College District, Cabrillo College District and all of our adjoining dis-
tricts except ourselves have exactly the kind of facility we are talking about." .'
Specifically addressing the scale model of the proposed stadium facility, Dr.
Lowery stated that the Planning Director had adequately described the proposed
facility, pointing out that "for all practical purposes there is nothing that
is visible from beyond the confines of the District except the light poles,
6 light standards and perhaps the press box."
Regarding the issue of traffic, Dr. Lowcry stated that they agreed that there
would be more traffic but .that they did not feel it would be significantly
more. He stated: "We don't think it justifies the term used in your Finding
#9 of a 'severe impact.' We believe that the project is designed to absolutely
minimize the effect on the neighbors." Dr. Lowery pointed out that per their
technical data, lighting readings 500-feet from~e center of the proposed field
would only be .002 foot candles, which he contended was almost unmeasurable.
Regarding the sound system, he stated that by making some modifications to
this sys~eB a measurement from 500 feet from the center of the field would be
in the range of normal speech. He amended this statement with regards to crowd
activities, stating that it could be expected that cheering crowds would be
louder, "but 5 or 10 nights of the year does not seem to be excessive to us."
With regard to this statement, Chairman Belanger asked what the proposed usage
of the__f.~ci_lity would be, and Dr. Lowery explained that such had not been '~
."c~e"FFd'~ireCtly" by the Board. He pointdd out that the College itself
had 5 foo~bail games scheduled to play "at home"; and that use by neighboring
high schools would be a consideration for the Governing Board to make.
Chairman Belanger asked in response to this statement: "How could you, for
instance:choose Saratoga High School as one to benefit from your facility and
then refuse that facility to any other of the schools who also pay taxes in
the District?" Dr. Lowery explained: "That is why I very carefully said that
it would be a Governing Board decision." He added, however, that no football
games would be scheduled from Sunday through Thursday, and that the use would
be probably only on Friday~ and Sat~da~dRring the 10-week period of footpall
season. He stated: "There is no way we cOhld serve all the College and ~
all the high schools in the district. It is mathematically impossible. There
would be some kind of a justification based on the request."
Specifically addressing the Staff Report, Dr. Lowery made the following comments:
- Finding ~1 regarding the E%~, Dr, LOW~y_~ed they felt w~s moo~, adding:' _
-6-
· CO~IISSION MINUTES OF/IL 14~ 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Conttd
"We have complied With theflaw and a finding has been reached. Differences-_-~
~f opinion may exist, and of course, that is entirely acceptable."
- When a~ked ~%% Board's feeling on Finding #2 regarding the statement that the
I-.- ........r - p~oposed project wo~ld not ~e consistent with the City General Plan,
Dr. Lowery stated: "If this project is not consistent with the City
General Plan, then probably the whole College is inconsistent with the
General Plan. The fact is that the College is here, and if it isn't
~ consistent, I don't know what you or I or anyone can do about it. All
we want to do is complete what already is or is not consistent. We donlt
think this is inconsistent ~ith the College's operation."
- Regarding the other findings in the Staff Report, Dr. Lowery stated that
He Yelt these could be succinctly combined by quoting from Item ~7 as
follows: "The proposed improvements will compound any existing nuisance
relationship created by the College's proximity to adjacent residences."
He stated that they did not consider themselves to be a nuisance, point-
i~g out that they served not only the 30,000 residents of Saratoga, but
also the other 140,000 residents of the District. He added: "Everyone,
as I indicated, is entitled to their own opinion, but we know from facts
that the fesiden~s_.of Saratoga not only as students but also as general
citizens use our facilities to a greater degree than any other area of
our district." He added: '~at we really feel is that if we are a nuisance
on this project, then we are a nuisance in general. We feel that is un-
fortunate. We do not consider public education a nuisance. The facts
are that the College is here; it is going to be here for a long time."
The following questions were addressed to Dr. Lowery by Commission members:
® Co~m~dssioner Marshall pointed out that the January 1967 use permit had been
granted with a condition that a large-scale outdoor stadium Ushall not be
constructed." He stated that his knowledge of the College's Master Plan
was that no such stadium had been proposed at the time of the use permit
approval, and he asked when did the stadium proposal occur. Dr~ Lowery
explained that the original plans predated his employment, but added that
the intent of the Governing Board was to complete the College as a total
entity consistent with other kinds of similar entities throughout the state.
· Commissioner Zambetti asked from what account or fund would the money be
coming from for the construction of this proposed facility. Dr. Lowery
explained that there Were 2 existing sources from which it could come
.... ..~_~ ....... from: the community service fund or the College's general construction fund.
..... He also inquired as to access points to the field, and Dr. Lowcry
~ pointed out the route and indicated that 3 gates already existed
~ for the practice field.
· Chairman Belanger asked what the estimated cost of the night facility and
loudspeaking facilities would be, and Dr. Lowery estimated approximately
$450,000. Chairman Belanger then commented that that was a lot of money
to spend for only 10 games a year. Dr. Lowery stated: "I was only speak-
ing to football. There are other activities and all I. am trying to say
is that~the uses that it could b'e put to are probably endless."
· Commissioner Callon asked when the proposed Mission Campus was to be in
operation, and Dr. Lowery stated that the first phase building was presently
under construction and that it was anticipated that this would be completed
add occupied in the fall of 1978.
· Commissioner ~rtin inquired whether every junior college in the area
had a stadium, recalling none at De Anza campus. Dr. Lowery replied
that each district, but not every campus, had a stadium.
-7-
CO~ffSSION }~NUTES OF AP~_RIL 14, 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
· Chairman Belanger noted that Condition ~3 of the January 1967 Use Permit
stipulated that enrollment should not exceed 5,000 full-time equivalent
day students without prior consultation with the City Planning Commission,
and she pointed out that the proposed stadium was for a larger amount of
people than that of the student body. In response to this, Dr o Lowery
explained that "day-graded students" was a statistical term used by the
State of California. He explained that the District had something in the
neighborhood of 50-60 different sites throughout the District for one or more
classes, and pointed out that the District did not attempt to break d~n
"ADA" figures from this. He guessed, however, that the Saratoga campus
ADA figure was in the neighborhood of 8-9,000 students.
BREAK
....... 'sponse
® Joseph Asenza, resident of Rio de1 Mar and taxpayer in this District with an
office rented at 1777 Saratoga Avenue, explained that 12 years ago he was
"one of the members of this con~nunity who told and did our best to inform
the public that they were going to build this athletic facility. One of the
nmin reasons that we were against it was that this College would not be any-
where near the center of the c~r~unity ~hat was using it." He claimed that
this point was now proven insomuch as Dr. Lowcry had confirmed that West
Valley College was now servicing i~Q,O00 people within their district, and
the College itself was located at the far end of the district instead of in
the center. Additionally, he made the following co~nents: (1) Mr. Asenza
pointed out that not all campuses .within the area had this type of facility,
explaining that Canada College did not intend to have a football field
"because both the Board of Trustees and the administration feel that it is a
waste of money and they can better spend it for educational purposes."
(2) He pointed out that Dr, Lowcry made reference to the fact that many
Saratoga citizens use the tennis court facilities, Mr. Asenza stated: "I
would like to recall many letters that I have ~ritten to the paper where I
made the statement that they were holding out a carrot to the Saratoga
people by giving them a few tennis courts to try to buy their votes. This
proves that point." (3) Relative to the con~nunity service funds, Mr. Asenza
maintained that "community service funds were supposed to be spent to allow
the people in the communities in the district to use the existing facility
that would be built for the day-time students. And that is all." He
stressed that these funds were not supposed to be used to build facilities.
(~) Relative to the noise factor, he explained that he worked for 2 years
with the announcer at Los Gatos high school games, and contended that noise
from these games carried 3/~ mile away. From a lighting standpoint, he
pointed out that when night lights were on at Cabrillo College~ they could
be seen as far away as 1 mile, (5) He stated that the amount of intended
use could be anJ~here from ~ at-home games on up. He complained that
$~50,000 spent for S at-home games was excessive, and stated: "As I under-
stand it, on the average of junior college ball games, they don~t even draw
1,000 people. So again, our Board of Trustees are wasting money." (6) bit.
Asenza observed that the College representatives had promised the City at
the time of the original use permit application that there would be no
athletic facility at this campus, and that the only football team repre-
senting the district would be in Santa Clara, With reference to this, he
cited from the College's Educational Specifications the detailed plans for
construction of an athletic facility. In closing, Mr. Asenza suggested that
the Commission deny this application, and "if necessary fight it all the way
to the Supreme Court."
· Joseph Donshue, ~712 Buckhall Road, San Jose, stated that he was president
:.'~.of the United Taxpayers, County of Santa Clara, speaking on behalf of those
residents who resided in the College District. He made the following
con~nents: (1) He stated that the use permit had been authorized for the
College not to exceed 5,000 students, adding: '~e believe that some certi-
fication should have accompanied the application for this further amendment
to this particular use permit, and particularly, of how many students is
..... really in this particular colleges" (2) He stated that they felt any
-8-
COM~ffSSION ~ffNUTES OF 976 ~-
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley='Colle~e Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
fh~ther expansion to the College must be stopped by the City, explaining
that from the last fiscal year to the present fiscal year, the cost of the
tax rate in this district went up 19.6¢. He stated: '~qhen you couple this
with the assessment increase of 25% average, you ~dll find that the
College -- the amount of money that people paid in property taxes to support
this particular college district -- has increased almost 50% in one year.
It is time this comes to a screeching halt."
· Jim Isaacs, 13685 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, noted that he was a taxpayer in
the City and briefly summarized a letter he submitted to the Commission.
He explained that his opposition to the stadiumbegan ~en he saw in the
newspaper that the "~practice field'~ lights had turned into a concession
................... stand, bleachers, a loudspeaker system and other facilities for a fu~l stadium.
}~. Isaacs pointed out that he had participated in t/{~'i973 deneral Plan
Review, and had chaired a committee thereof who recommended that the City
oppose any stadium facility at .the College because of adverse effects.
With respect to this, Mr. Isaacs recommended that the City follow through
with its Staff findings on the EIR that the proposed facility would have a
negative.impact on the environment. He added: "I would reccamuend that the
City,r~h~ing public hearings to that extent, that that be used as a basis
for opposing that EIR in court, if necessary." Mr. Isaacs argued that the
stadium would not be limited to a small number of football games, but would
be available for other activities; and he expressed the opinion that -
~ssion College would not be able to build a stadium on that campus because
of the lack of funds. With regard to his opposition to this use permit
application, Mr. Isaacs stated that his p~imary reason for opposing this
stadiumwas the general attitude of the College: "Of one that it can
darn well do ~.~at it pleases and the City can do what they want, but they
are not going to respond to that. Specifically, at the last meeting of
the Board, they voted 2-3 to present this to the City; that is, 2 members
of the Board felt that it wasn't even worth going through the City for.
One of those members voiced that this might set a precedent ~en they want
to expand the facility later, they might have to come back to the City."
In conclusion, ~. Isaacs stated: "I would urge specifically that you
uphold the current use permit; that you carry out whatever steps are nec-
essary to uphold it in court, if necessary; and that you take steps to see
that it is not overriden by the College Board of Trustees. They will be
meeting on May 6th at their regular meeting to override whatever decision
is made here, if it's not made favorably."
® Colonel Barco, Camino Barco, Saratoga, stated that he became concerned
"about this effort to pitch Saratogans on a facility that's actually for
the district." He explained that as a result he pletted on a map the
residences of all the people who ~ote letters to the newspaper, and that
he made the discovery that "there are more heroes back in the rear than
are up under the firing line." He made the following additional comments:
(1) Relative to the EIR, Col. Barco stated that he felt such was worthless
from the College, explaining ~th several illustrations his point.
Specifically, he reported that the College had approved an EIR stating that
a large pine tree on the campus would not be cut d~n, but that several
weeks later it was cut down. Further, that the College had told property
o~ners that the east side of the campus would always be green, adding:
"Today it'~sgot acres of asphalt." He contended that the College admin-
istration had told the City at time of use permit approval that there
would never be a stadium at the College, adding: "I was present at those
meetings. They have already got the hole dug!" He added: '~qhat I am
saying in essence is that regardless of ~ether their latest EIR is accurate
or inaccurate, slanted or straight, astute or asinine, it's going to make
little difference because the West Valley College administration has re-
pea~edly and.consistently demonstrated that it does what it. pleases."
(2) Col. Barco illustrated some of the expenditures made by the Governing
Board, specifically the 2 auditoriums and the superintendent's office, and
c~f~ared themwith the same expenditures made by the City. He concluded:
"Our mayor shares a little office over here with members of the Staff. Our
. City Manager. has a little office I think about 12 x 12 from which he runs
-9-
CO~rSSION MINUTES OF 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
this City. The superintendent of the College runs his campus from an office
that would make the Oval Room of the White House look like a hillbilly
outhouse." (3) In conclusion, Col. Barco stated: "So I just ask you to do
this. Get it on the record that this City is fed up with their broken
promises. We know they don't need the stadium lights. YoU don't have
to be an environmental impact expert to kn~ that if you live on San ~rcos
the '
and they put these things 50 some-odd feet in the air, that y re going
to have some impact on you. Our City government has been exercising great
fiscal restraints; our County government has had a Hiring freeze in order
to cut back. The governor's been making a strenous effort to fiscal
conservatism. Even the federal government's beginning to show signs of
little fiscal belt-tightening. So let's tell West Valley College administra-
tion to wake up and join the rest of the eountry. And while we're at it,
let's tell the governor these people haven't got his message yet."
® Mike Baker~ corner of Crisp Avenue and Fruitsale, stated [hat he was one of
the founders of the Saratoga Citizens Committee for the stadium. He stated:
'~4hen we first organized ourselves, we tried to address all of the concerns
many of which have been expressed tonight, and. we tried to address them
objectively. We said to ourselves, what are the facts; what are we really
looking for? We certainly aren't looking to say the College shouldn't be
here. It is here. So really, the issue is should we or should we not be
in favor of the kinds of facilities being discussed here tonight. We did
review the parking, the crowds, ahd so forth, and we're satisfied with the
results. The reco:~endations were made and accepted. We reviewed the type
of facilities, the size, the limitations of the size, the aesthetics, the
landscaping and so forth, and we're satisfied. We reviewed the intended
use; the frequency of use of the facility. We addressed the quality. We
think that we require a first class quality facility here in Saratoga. We
reviewed the cost and the impact on taxes, and essentially we tried to
remain objective throughout our preliminary stages. As a result,of these,
we came up with two specific recommendations: #1 is that we recommend to
the Board that they proceed with the construction of a complete facility
as proposed to and by the Board, and #2 is that there be dialogue between
the Board and the City Council and the Planning Commission relative to the
intended use." }k. Baker contended that this dialogue should be created
by the residents of Saratoga. Regarding the support gathered on behalf
of this proposed stadium, Mr. Baker submitted a petition containing 3,000+
signatures of Saratoga residents, and referenced all the letters to the
newspaper, Governing Board and the City in support of this activity.
In conclusion he stated: "I think that I certainly take pride in Saratoga,
and I think all Saratogans do, and some of us take pride in West Valley
College. We think it helps our City. We don't really think it hurts.
And I think we have confidence that this City can work together with the
College to firther improve the quality and the availability of both the
scholastic and the athletic facility."
® James Appleyard, resident on Harleigh Drive, Saratoga, stated that he was
representing the Good Government Group, and submitted a letter dated
April 12, 1976 stating the Group's position. Essentially the letter
expressed strong opposition to the construction of this proposed facility
and it urged the City to "not only deny an amendment to UP-119, but also
that it require West Valley College to conform to the use permit's require-
ments and spirit. We urge that the Governing Board of West Valley Community
College recognize the residential nature of this community and its desire
for minimum taxation by cancelling the ~o"~fl~di~d'l'i~h'~ project
~ in Saratoga,"'Th~l~t~eYfh'~her' stated: "The fact that West Valley
College has been violating the terms of the'use permit has been affecting
the quality of life in Saratoga for some time. West Valley College should
be required to reduce its ADA to less than 5,000 and no modification of the
use permit should be granted. We strongly urge the Saratoga Planning Com-
mission, the City Council and the state agencies dealing with co~mnunity
colleges to do all within their powers to control this potential intrusion
on a residential community."
-10 -
~ C0}~SSION MINUTES OF A{~
.,: ,
III. F. UP-119-A ,- West Valley ColleSe RequeSt for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
· Larry Jennings, resident of Soquel'~d athletic director of West Valley
College, claimed that there was a need for the proposed stadium. He ex-
plained that West Valley College was the only school in the Golden Gate
Conference without a completed football facility, and pointed out ~ode of
the problems involved in playing night games at other school facilities.
He explained that West Valley College was a commuter college, with most
of its students going home after their classes ended in the afternoon.
He stated: 'We feel that 'if.we can play a night game, it has been our
experience that we can draw 4-5,000 people in an average year if we play
an afternoon game.'~ Now when I say draw, we're not talking in terms of
a great revenue-producing thing. That is not the primary thrust behind
trying to get people to.turn out for our football games. We simply think
it's good education to involve your students in this kind of activity.
You don't suddenly outgro~ your need for educational benefits that come
through a good athletic program." He explained that they had rented
..faoilities since they have been in existence, and that Buckshaw Stadium
was cancelled last year without a 24-hour. notice. He argued that this
caused a great deal of problems, adding: "You cannot really play a good
football game in someone else's facility. And I'll have to say a point
right here. It is important to have your o~nhome field or home court
advantage." He stated that track and soccer games would also be desirous
of using' the proposed facility, and stated that the College's soccer coach
would like to play night soccer as opposed to afternoon soccer as it gave
parents and students an opportunity to come and watch these matches.
Additionally, Mr. Jennings pointed out that 1 out of 6 Saratogans use the
West Valley College facilities, pointing out that Saratoga citizens were
using it far more than any other residents in the district. He stated
that as far as athletics were concerned, he would like to play 20 foot~all
games a year: 5 for West Valley, 15 for high schools in the area. He
added: 'We would like to be able to play some soccer at night. We would
like to have some night track meets. So we're looking -- we're hoping --
that we'll be able to use that facility at least 50 times at night. Now
I would say thet20 football games would be in my mind major events in
terms of the types of crowds you would draw. You would not draw crowds
at the other events."~
Chairman Belanger asked Mr. Jennings ~daether, aside from the tennis
courts which were already installed, what proportion of this proposed
facility would be used for women's athletes. She said it was her
understanding that the State Board of Education had sent down guidelines
requiring equality for women in education, including the allocation of
the sports budget and facilities. If this were the case, she asked
whether these guidelines.would require building another $450,000 stadium
for women. }~. Jennings stated: "I certainly hope not." He added that
the only sport for which women might use the facility was for field
hockey, a programwhich was attempted last year without success.
He added: "But I would say it wouldn't be a big priority at this time."
Regarding the petition submitted by"~r. Baker, Ohairman Belanger ~sked
whether the signatures on the petition were solicited by the students who
were attending West Valley College~at the direction of the Athletic
Department. Mr. Jennings stated that he worked on the Committee with Mr.
Baker, and added: "Ittwas a function primarily, I think, of the coaches
and myself. We found athletes -- there were some interested people ~.~o
wanted to support -- primarily students who did the walking in the
precincts to get the signatures."
· Mr. Schrager, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that he was a taxpayer
and was speaking on behalf of West Valley College. He emphasized the
fact that West Valley College was here to stay, addlngf "The truth of
the matter is that West Valley is here._~ It is a vibrant, viable and
community-serving institution. When one-sixth of all the adults of this
community have availed themselves of the student curriculum and when
probably double or triple that amount of its citizens have participated
in all its social, civic, educational, recreational and cultural facilities;
-11 -
~ COM~,~SSION ~0TES OF~IL 14~ 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
when this College has demonstrated that it has brought great credit to the
pride of this community; how then can we Saratogans carry on this vLndetta
of ill will?" He asked: '~qhere else can we go as Saratogans and have
these needs filled? We would have to go out of our coxm~nity." In conclusion,
Mr. Schrager commented: "Could you in all clear conscience deny West Valley
its right to completion so that it can continue to serve for fuller op_por-
tunities for ourselves who are adults in this great period of adult educa-
tion and adult self-improvement and for our children who are co~_,ng up?
I urge you in all sincerity and in all fairness to all of us to heartily
endorse Fes~.Vallev'.s.cQilege plans."
· Glenda Morley, Kenosha Court, wished to address ~."J~nnings' commentsz "I
think he forgot rock concerts. We have no guarantee that there wouldn't be
rock concer~s, or scout jamborees or all kinds of things taking place once
the bleachers and lights are in. And I'm curious to know why West Valley
thinks they need all these night activities when Stanford University does
not have lights for their track ~nd field? Based on the previous integrity
of the College, I don't think we can believe ~hat they say. Since November
of 1973 some of us have been working actively to get shielding for the tennis
lights; and to this date, this problem is still unresolved. Mr. Lowe_~-y
mentioned large scale, and I think the City should be aware that }~. Br]den
of the College has already expressed a desire to see the stadi~mbe able to
accommodate 15-20,000." She added: "So you see once the College gets
what it wants, we have no guarantee that it will not continue to grow or
that it will abide by any of the suggested mitigation measures in the EIR.
We the residents and taxpayers will have to live ~ith a facility that is
... inconsistent to the environment of Saratoga, and ~-~11 have to live with it
'fo~"~ii'fetime." ~She informed the Commission that there were pl~nsb~'t~
College to build Bleachers and a dug-out for the baseball field as well.
At this time she submitted a petition of residents and taxpayers of the
City opposing this project, requesting this be added to the petition already
on file ~ith the City Manager. Further she submitted comments by Lick
Observatory about the lighting polution in this Valley as being relevant
to this issue, and submitted a letter from the Odd Fellows Home and a map
of the Mission College campus showing their planned football stadium.
· John Seville, a resident of Saratoga for 19 years, responded to Mrs.
Morley's comments: "She has been using the same defense for the past 2
years. Stanford happens to be a live-in college. West Valley is a coa~nity
college. If Mrs. Morley wants the same facilities that Stanford has for
West Valley, we can always build an 85,000-seat stadium." He contended
that }~s. Morley misquoted ~. Briden, arguing that Mr. Briden actually
wanted only a stadium seating 12,000 not 15-20,000. Regarding the Mission
College campus, Mr. Sevilla stated that if a stadium was built at Mission
College "it's predicted that it will cost over one million dollars since
the construction will not start until 1985." As a concluding comment
Mr. Sevilla responded to }~s. Morley's comment on the baseball plans:
"The College is planning baseball dug-outs and seating for 250. This was
requested by the citizens of Saratoga."
· Clifton Spears, a student at West Valley College, stated that he was the
president of Sports Activities Club and on the Co~m~ission of Athletics.
He stated that he was not a participating athlete but was the athletic
trainer for the College. He explained that last football season they had
been forced to change from using Buckshaw Stadium to Chabo~ College stadium,
and as a result he contended that West Valley lost their game. He contended
that it was very important to have a home stadium, and he asked the Planning
Commission to support the proposed stadium facility.
· John Hamut, Alondra Lane, stated that he moved to Saratoga a year ago "just
so I could live next to West Valley College." ~. Hamut sta~ed: "The
thin~ is that if everybody looks at what is already there, and then on top
of it puts this stadium there with lights, you really haven't added any
significant impact. I would have to say that I'm very proud to live in
this neighborhood and close to West Valley College.. That's wh~_=I came
here, and what I thinkwe should do is try to get along.~ith the College
and not fight it."
-12 -
~OM24ISSION }~NUTES OF A~IL 14~ 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley Coll~Se Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
® Ann Hatrod, 19520 Kenosha Court, pointed out that she lived directly across
from the tennis courts, adding: "I wish'.~to point out that these arguments
about Saratoga citizens utilizing the College are not cogent. If the
facilities are available, obviously people are going to utilize them."
She stated: "So the fact that the tennis courts may be flooded with
Saratoga citizens does not mean that those tennis players themselves
really voted to spend their money for those facilities. So I think that
kind of argument is completely deflective to the entire issue at point.
I think the issue at point is, should this money be spent for academic
purposes or should it be spent for peripheral sportS. facilities."
· As clarification, Dr. Lowcry made the follo~ing co~m~ents in response to the
above testimonl~' (1) Regarding the tennis court light shielding, he pointed
out that they were on order at the present time and would be installed ~nen
received. (2) He contended that the College had worked in full cooperation
with the City up to this point. (3) With regards to finances, he stated:
"By a lot of loose, and I have to use that word, talk about operating costs,
school finance~ in the State of California is a very complex issue, and I'd
be pleased to discuss it with anyone in the audience or anyone here at any
time. But just to simplify matters, you're all familiar I'm sure with the
revenue limits and the things you've read in the newspaper about SB-90
(elementary school limits), they can only spend so much per student. Just
for the facts, the ~ollege districts operate at less under State law per
student than does this school district, the elementary district of Saratoga
.- or Los Gatos High School and Elementary School District. Actually our
per-student cost as a result of State law and as a result of actual expendi-
tures over the past several years since the laws changed is less than the
elementary or high school."
Co~ission Response~
At this point as there were no additional testimony to 'b'~g~ven, Eommissioner
Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the publi~ hearing on
UP-119-A be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing
was closed at 10:40 p.m.
The following comments were made by the Planning Connissioners:
· Commissioner Zambetti pointed out that in looking over the 2 sets of
petitions submitted, he discovered several names ~f'~ple who signed both
petitions for and against this use permit application. Further, Commissioner
Zambetti stated: "I can't think of a college that's done a better job as
far as education, as far as an open-door policy, as far as putting on a
2-year program for higher education. But I really have some problems
when we talk about a football field and when 5,000 people have to leave
when it's all over, all at once." Additionally he stated: "Another
thing that comes to my mind is that Wrigley Field has been around for
about 39-40 years, and it's on the north side of Chicago, and it doesn't
have any lights, and that's in a residential area. Another point is that
in the March 10, 1976 issue of the West Valley College newspaper, I read a
quote from Jim Hardy: 'If we apply for an amendment to this use permit, we
will be ~orcing them (~ City) to face the issue which we are tonight.. If
they deny us the amendment, we can exempt ourselves from the use permit.'
To me, when I look at a use permit, I look at it as a contract. Something
that if you break is fraud and misrepresentation." In conclusion Cormnissioner
Zambetti pointed out: "This City cannot afford an increased cost of police
protedtion, road maintenance and the traffic at'a~I one time. This is a
rural, residential community. It was incorporated 20 years ago with
those ideals, and as this Planning Commission (and as one Planning Commissioner)
I believe that we have to protect that for the future -- not only for today."
· Cormnissioner }~rtin expressed concern about the impact this project would
have on traffic. He stated: "I'm very much concerned to see 5,000 people
coming to an .event with all of the traffic, and to know the school does
not have the capability of assisting in the handling of that traffic
throughout the City. This is my principal concern." ._
-13 -
CO}~SSION~NUTES OF ~IL 14, 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
· Conmissioner Callon first of all welcomed West Valley College to the
community, adding: "I consider the presence of the College in our community
as an asset. And I must admit~ that I was a little bit embarrassed tonight
at the feeling that I also got from members of the audience that West
Valley's a bad entity all by itself. I sit here tonight as a Planning
Commissioner for the City of Saratoga to represent its residents and also
to represent an interest in planning for our City. My interest in planning
for our City is the chSracter of this City ~hich is residential, which by
that nature means a controlling of noise, traffic, environmental aspects
to suiteresidents and a controlling of the uses that go on in the City that
also would turn out to be assets to the do~,m~nity as a residential area."
Additionally, she stated: "I find the issue of the stadium at West Valley
College a regional planning issue rather than a local planning issue.".~TM
respect to this Commissioner~Callon pointed out that although she considered
West Valley College to be an asset to this co~af~nity, "I would have to reach
hard to feel that the community, the City of Saratoga, would benefit from
the addition of a stadium. I think the stadium itself is a great asset to
the College community in that it provides themwith a pleasurable sports
program that can be shared with parents and so on, but I can't find as a
planner for the City of Saratoga that it provides the City with a need that
should be developed within the City." In regards to another point relative
.......... ~'~'h~e'regi6~l'~lanning remark, Con~i~sioner Callo~i~ted out that
West Valley Coll~ge District extended over many miles and would have a ~-"~.~'~
facility at the Mission College campus in Santa Clara. She added: '~lthough
I understand that that would put the funding of a stadium many years down
the line and naturally increase the costs greatly, I find that it perhaps
is the only viable compromise if the West Valley College District will
support the funding down the line for a stadium at that point. That may
be a better regional planning choice because the surrounding area there
is more suitable to the use that is proposed. For instance, I heard tonight
that it is surrounded by some light industrial area; there is some residential,
and there is also the Great America Theme Park in the neighborhood. It seems
to me that the intensive use that a stadium proposes would be better put
in that location."
· Commissioner Marshall specifically addressed the findings of the Staff
Report dated April 9, 1976, contending that such findings addressed the
question of the impact upon the totality of the City. He cited the
following findings and made comments thereto: "Finding]~3 -"The project
would not be consistent ~ithathe Objectives of the zoning ordinance or
land use policies of the City." COmnissionerMarshall explained that these
objectives and policies were set every 5 years by General Plan Reviews in
which a large number of people in the City were encouraged to say how they
would like this City to be in the future. He added: "And therefore, if
that statement is true, I must conclude the stadium is not in our best
interest." Finding #4 - "This requested use permit-is not consistent with
the purposes of conditional use permits." He stated: "Another reason
which, from a planning standpoint, would cause me to vote against the
application." Finding ~5 - "The proposed amendment is not compatible or
consistent with the objectives of the plans and ordinances regulating land
use within the City of Saratoga." Commissioner b~rshall pointed out that
Dr. Lowery had objected to this statement. Finding ~7 - "The proposed
impNovements ~ill compound an existing nuisance." Commissioner Marshall
noted that Dr. Lowcry had objected to the use of the term "nuisance/'
He added: "I submit that the term applies only to specific activities of
the College and not to the presence of the College itself." He explained ·
that the City was at present addressing the "amusement programs" rather
the educational programs per se, and he contended that they were contrary
to the thrust that '~as been taken by the governor of this state,"
specifically a cut-back on the expenditures of taxpayers' funds. Commissioner
Marshall's last point was relative to the major impact in dollars to the
City by the actions of the College. He stated: "In terms of additional
public works' maintenance of roads, over-crowding which x~ill necessitate
further improvements to roads, the additional police protection required,
and. last but not least, the additional signing and_p_olicing of parking
iwhich you will need in.adjaceBt.areas of the City.. For all of those reasons I
.............. in[end to vote agains~ the request for modification of the use permit."
-14-
CO~SSION }~NUTES OF ~IL 14~ 1976
III. F. UP-119-A - West Valley College Request for Amended Use Permit - Cont'd
· At this point Chairman Belanger acknowledged the receipt of 23 letters of
correspondence received by residents of Saratoga regarding this matter:
19 letters were in opposition to this application and 4 were in favor of
the application. She directed that these letters be made part of the
UP-119-A file.
· Chairman Belanger expressed interest in the Good Gove~_nmeU~ Group's letter
read into the record by Mr. Appleyard, with special ..e~-Rha~is
reference to Richard Amy"x, the City of San Jose Public"Wo~S Environmental
Coordinator. She quoted his comment: "...it seems that the project has
been assembled from the inside out. That is, that the improvements are
being proposed in the hope that a sports and entertainment program will
materialize from them, rather than a demonstrable need for the improvements
being dra~Qn from a proposed sports and_'~-entertainment program in the community."
With regard to this c~muent, Chairman Belanger stated: "Before the College_
" 'proposed this addition of a sta~'fOX~", I ~rSonall~'~e'~rd no"groundswell of
demand from our citizens for an athletic facility of this extent from the
City itself or from the school or from an3n~here. And the only reason it
arose was that it was proposed on the campus. I can't speak for the Board
of Directors there. Perhaps they did have citizens beating dozen their
doors and asking them please to install a stadium, but those people have
not come to us ~ith that request. We have received requests to the contrary,
and so I am also opposed to this stadium as it's proposed and this change
to the use permit as requested."
Conmission Action
At this time Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
thatrthe Planning Commission deny application UP-119-A in accordance with
Findings ~1 through #12 of the Staff Report dated April 9, 1976. The motion
was carried unanimously.
Chairman Belanger ad~i-sed the applicant and those present in the audience that
an appeal to the City Council could be made within 10 days of this Planning
Commission decision.
G. GF-303 - City of Saratoga, Proposed Amendments to the 1974 General Plan for
the City of Sarato~a~ Continued fromMarch 10} 1976
The Secretary Tecalled that the Commission had continudd this matter pending
City Council action on the consistency issue that the Commission recommended
Lat its March 10th meeting. He explained, however, that the City Council
scheduled this item for review at its Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on
April 27th. As a result, Staff recommended this itembe continued to the
first meeting in ~y.
Chairman Belanger redpened the public hearing on GF-303 at 10:55 p.m. As there
were no comments made, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on GF-303
and directed that 'same be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
May 12, 1976.
H. GF-307 - Senior Citizen Housing, Proposed Amendment to Article 3, Section 3.3
of Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, by Adding Senior Citizen
Housing as a Conditional Use in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Zonin~ District of the City of SararoSa
Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared on this item rec~muending
approval. Specifically, Don Burr (Staff member) explained that the Report
stated that the Saratoga General Plan and the City Housing Element recognized
thexneed for senior citizen housing. He expressed the opinion that there was
a demand for this type of housing, and stated that the City had recognized
certain residential areas in the City as being suggestive sites for this type
of housing. He stated that Staff was recommending that senior citizen housing
be provided for as a conditional use in an "R-I" zone to allow the market the
-15 -
COmPreSSION MINUTES OF~,IL 14, 1976
III. H. GF-307 - Senior Citizen Housing - Cont'd
opportunity to address itself to this need. He added that through the use
permit process the City could regulate any application as to site planning and
various other requirements.
At this time Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on this matter at 10:58 p.m.
· Karen Bates, 14471 Springer Road, pointed out that a Senior Citizens
Housing Task Force had been appointed by the City in 1975 to study this
matter, and she_requested a decision on GF-307 be delayed until a Report
from this ~ask!Fo~de had been released to the public and input from
senior citizens had been given. She asked how a proposed amendment of
this nature could be discussed when the findings from the Task Force had
not been presented before the public, and she asked whether there were
other alternatives being presented considering such things as the establish-
ment of revolving loans at low interest rates or grants to assist the
elderly in increasing the availability of adequate housing.
Don Burr addressed these questions by pointing out that the City for the
past 6-8 years had been studying this senior citizens housing problem,
and that "nothing has come about. There is a task force in effect and they
have been taking a survey. The Planning Staff is aware of this, and they know
somewhat the outcome of this survey. We feel that if we wait too much longer,
there won't be any land left. The housing market is just too competitive."
He explained that there were really only 2 sites still available in
Saratoga for senior citizens housing: one lot on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
and one lot off of Saratoga Avenue. He explained that as a conditional
approval, the City would also require that federal, state or local monetary
assistance programs be required of each applicant. Mr. Burr pointed out
.~ this would require state or federal programs to establish various guidelines
]br senior citizens housing, an~ would not require the City to go
o_ in-depth at this 'time to establish these requirements. He further pointed
out that the City would also require a site development plan to be submitted
along with any proposal.
® Jim Isaacs, resident of Saratoga and a member of the Social Needs Assessment
Task FOrce, asked whether this pr__oposed amendment'~'~'6~l'd provfd['for multiple-~
family dwellings. Mr. Burr pointed out that this would not allow multiple-f
'family dwellings per se, but mult~ple-Unit dwellings for senior citizens.
in f~rthe~' explanation of the amendment, the Secretary pointed'out that
this proposed addition to the ordinance would provide for use permit
provisions in the ordinance to allow senior citizens facilities to occur
in a residential zone. He added that the regulation of those activities
would still be under the purview of the Planning C~ssion.
. Further, the Secretary expressed the opinion that this amendment would not
supersede the efforts of the Senior Citizen Housing Task Force, adding:
"This is only a provision that shows ~ou we are no~ diSCouraging,
but encouraging the ability for people to have that type of housing mirk~t."
Further he explained, in answer to a question on same by Mr. Isaacs, that
this suggested amendment would be in c~f~pllance with ~h'~'State Health Depar~-
;m'~'s general issuing that care facilities housing 6 or less persons were
allowable uses in an R-1 district.
As there was no further testimony given, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded
by Commissioner Callon, that the public hearing'o~ GF-307 be closed. The motion
was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 11:02 p.m.
Commissioner ~rshall reported that this mutter had been reviewed in length by
the Subdivision Committee, and added: '~While I would be very upset if I thought
we were interfering with the activities of the senior citizens task force, I
vi~ this as being the first in the set of enabling legislation that sets the
stage for being able to really do something about senior citizens housing in
Saratoga. We've been talking about it for years and haven't done anything so
far. Therefore, I would like to see action taken tonight."
-16-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
III. H. GF-307 - Senior Citizen Housing - Cont'd
C~ssioner Callon agreed with this position, stating: "I'd be extremely
embarrassed if I felt that we were stepping on the toes of the senior citizens
task force, But I feel that this does not point out the areas where we need the
housing or in any way deal with those issues that that Task Force is dealing
with." ..... :='
At this time, C~h~ssioner Marshall moved, seconded by Co~m~d s sioner. }~'rtin,
that the Planning Co~-,,~ssion adopt Resolution No. PC-124 amending Zoning
Ordinance NS-3, Article 3, Section 3.3, by adding "Senior Citizen Housing" __.
thereto per the Staff Report dated April 12, 1976, and that this _ ~
be forwarded to the City Council with the recoamendation that it be adopted. ';
The motionwas carried unanimously.
IV. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1224 - Kelly-Gordon Co., Miller Avenue, Final Building Site Approval -
3 Lots
Commissioner Martin noted that he had questions which had not been resolved by
the data appearing on the Building Site Approval Agreement, specifically the
requirement for a landscaping agreement had not been included thereon. Staff
explained that this condition had not been included on the Agreement because
it had already been complied~with. Cou~nissioner Martin expressed additional
concern over existing hose bib. s and lines on ~he property, and ~sked who would
be responsible for the maintenance of these items. Staff explained that those
items had been part of an older landscaping agreement on this property, and
noted that these items were now part of a total landscaping agreement which
would be incorporated into the CC&Rs of the 3 lots.
At this point, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin,
that the Planning Con~ission grant final building site approval to application
SDR-1224. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises, Granite Way, Final Design Review Approval,
Single-Family Residence, Lot ~12~ Tract ~5011
Staff noted that the applicant had prepared a revised grading plan and retain-
ing wall concept at the request of Staff, which essentially addressed the
off-site eXisting problems of a pre-graded pad that was larger than was needed
for the existing dwelling. It was explained that the revised plans provided
for the gradual and natural slope transistion between this lot and adjacent
lots. Staff pointed out that the Design Review C~m-~ttee had reviewed and
endorsed this plan, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommmending
approval.
Commissioner Zambetti explained that this matter had beenileft off of the
Consent Calendar in order to show the Commission that a great deal of dialogue
and review had occured between Staff, the applicant and the Design Review
Committee to resolve this problem. Wit~ that comment, Commissioner Zambetti
moved, seconded by Cuum~ssioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant
final design review approval to application A-467, Lot #12 of Tract #5011
per Exhibits F and F$1 and the Staff Report dated April 6, 1976. The motion
was carried unanimously.
B. A-517 - Abe Carried, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, F~nal Design Review Approval,
l'd~[tion to EXisting CoT~nercial Building; Continued from March 10~ 1976
Staff suggested this matter be continued until such time as the matter of
several existing illegal uses operating.within the structure had beenLjresolved.
Staff noted that the applicant had ~rinformed by the Subdivision Conmlittee
' thee several of the'existing uses woufd]' in ord[~'to remain, require amend~e~
to the Zoning Ordinance~s appropriate permitted or conditional use lists, and
that other existing uses being conditional uses in that district ~uld require
use permits in order to remain. Resolution of these matters would, it was
explained, require the applicant's initiation by written request or submission
-17-
COMMISSION MINUTES OF__A_~14,1976 -~-
,- V. B. A-517 - Abe Carriea - Cont'd
of application. As note was made that nothing had transpired on this issue
since the last Commission meeting, Commissioner Marshall suggested that should
the applicant not respond by the May 12th Commission meeting, that this design
review application be terminated~ntil resolution of the uses issue was resolved.
After additional discussion on this matter, Chairman Belanger directed A-518
be continued to the May 12, 1976 Planning Commission meeting, and directed
Staff to notify the applicant of this b~y 12th deadline.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. UP-296 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc. (John Lyngso), 12405 S. Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, Resolution for Use Permit to Allow Continuation of
the Non-Conforming C~ercial Use in a Residential Zoning District
Staff noted that the City Attorney had prepared a Resolution regarding the
Co~ission-approved action of March 24th on this use permit, and the recom-
mendation was made that the Con-~ission formalize that action by approving
said Resolution.
Considerable discussion followed on the contents of the Resolution, with
Chairman Belanger requesting the following modifications be made thereto:
(1) Exhibit A, page 1, first paragraph: change the timeframe from 5 years
to 10 years
(2) Exhibit A, page 1, Condition (8); change date to October 3, 1985
(3) Exhibit A, page 1: add the following Condition (10):
"Thematerial-handling equipment shall be converted to
propane fuel. This should be done by June 30, 1976."
(4) Exhibit A, page 2, first paragraph: delete "or to terminate or
extend the use permit ~ith" from the first sentence
(5) Exhibit B, Finding ~1: delete "Jad the purposes of the district
in which the site is located" and add "to terminate non~
conforming uses"
Co~nissioner Martin stated that he could not vote in favor of this Resolution
insomuch as he had not been in favor of the 10-year amortization period.
Further, he pointed out that the could not agree with Finding ~4 of Exhibit B.
Commissioner Callon also pointed out that she could not ~ote in favor of
the Resolution as she too had not been in favor of the lO-year amortization
period. Chairman Belanger stated that she could not vote in favor of this
Resolution, emphasizing the point that she did not agree with any of the
four findings of Exhibit B (Report of Findings).
Insomuch as this Resolution would not gain a favorable majority vote by the
C~m~dssion, the question was raised as tow hat the next step would be. The
City Attorney explained ~]~at at its March 24th meeting, the Planning Commission
had granted approval of the use permit subject to the conditions contained in
the Staff Report. Consequently, he explained that if the Commission refused
to adopt this Resolution, it had still granted a use permit to the applicant.
After additional dialogue, it was recon~nended by Commissioner Marshall that
the Commission abandon these proceedings, and that'the Resolution not be
fo~qarded to the City Council by consensus of the Planni~g'C0~ssion. As
there were no objections to this recommendation, the proceedings were abandoned.
B. SDR-1223 - Kib~'~f'Hanson~ Dolphin Drive~ Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
Staff noted that all of the conditions of tentative building site approval had
been met, and recommended that the Planning Commission grant final building
site approval thereto. Note was made that the applicant had met the required
time schedules, but that this item had mistakenly not been added to the agenda.
As there were no cu~m~ents to be made on this item, Commissioner Marshall moved,
seconded by Chairman Belanger, that the Planning Commission grant final
building site approval to application SDR-1223. The motion was carried;
Co~nissioner Callon voted no stating that initially she voted against this
development and as a result felt th~_She Could not vote tn favor of its
final building site approval. ~'~'
-18-
COM}SSSION MINUTES OF ~...-IL14,1976
VII. WRITTEN CO~{UNICATIONS
A. Environmental Impact Determinations - There were no Negative Declarations
filed during the period of April 15 through April 28, 1976.
B. Other
1. Memorandum from the County Planning Department dated April 5, 1976
regarding the County's Variable Slope Density proposed formula, etc.
2. Letter dated ~rch 19, 1976 from Councilman ~tteoni to the City ~nager
regarding Open Space Easements.
VIII. ORAL COM}fiJNICATIONS
A. City Council Report
Commissioner Martin gave a detailed report of the City Council meeting of
April 21, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting are on file at the
CityAdministration Office.
B. Other
1. The Secretary notified the Commissioners that there would be a Joint
Committee-of-the-Whole meeting with the Council on April 27, 1976 at
7:30 p.m.
~7"eh~iY-man Belanger welcomed the presence of Councilman Corr to the meeting,
as well as Mrs. Runyah of AA~q; further, appreciation was expressed to
the~Good Government Group for serving coffee.
IX. ADJOURN}~NT
Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Za~aetti, that the Planning
Commission meeting of April 14, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning/ irector
Marry Van.i~uyn,
-19 -